Accusations and guilt: Hardwick et al.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**DarkTraveler777**

Disciple of Fate wrote:

You're the one getting a bit paranoid here, just look at the original source you posted:

AMC Networks have completed their investigation of Talking Dead host Chris Hardwick, ultimately leading to a decision which reinstates his role within the network.

“Following a comprehensive assessment by AMC, working with Ivy Kagan Bierman of the firm Loeb & Loeb, who has considerable experience in this area, Chris Hardwick will return to AMC as the host of Talking Dead and Talking with Chris Hardwick," AMC Networks said in a statement. "We take these matters very seriously and given the information available to us after a very careful review , including interviews with numerous individuals, we believe returning Chris to work is the appropriate step.”

The use of careful in that headline is just a quote on how AMC characterized its own review, nothing more, nothing less. You can read just as much into 'careful' review as in 'careful review'. Putting review in quotation marks doesn't add anything of value, while quoting careful does.

I disagree with you. Putting careful in shudder quotes does place a different emphasis on the title. Based on our previous interactions in this thread I don't think either of us will convince the other of our interpretation, but shudder quotes are a rhetorical devices used by writers. It just doesn't make sense to leave out "review" when that word immediately followed "careful" in the AMC statement, unless the writer/editor were trying to cast doubt on the vigilant nature of the investigation. Maybe it is bad writing/editing, but given the context of the article I am not convinced.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson Devil wrote:
Chloe Dykstra didn't participate with the AMC investigation. Her statement from twitter:

https://twitter.com/skydart/status/1022629877420183553

A longer piece on her statement:
http://www.vulture.com/2018/07/chloe-dykstra-speaks-out-after-amc-reinstates-chris-hardwick.html

Chloe Dykstra has spoken out for the first time since her ex-boyfriend Chris Hardwick was reinstated by AMC as the host of Talking Dead. The network had launched an investigation of him after Dykstra penned an essay, which did not mention Hardwick by name, detailing her claims of alleged emotional and sexual abuse in their relationship. In a statement posted to Twitter, Dykstra says that she did not participate in AMC’s investigation of Hardwick and states she simply wishes to move on with her life. Read her full statement below:

I have been adamant since I came forward with my essay that I never set out to ruin the career of the person I spoke about. I could have provided more details, but chose not to. I have said what I wanted to say on the matter, and I wish to move on with my life. For that reason, I chose not to participate in the investigation against the person I spoke of. I do not believe in an eye for an eye, and therefore I have only shared my evidence with those who I felt should see it.

What I wanted was for the people around me who heard a false narrative–one that was created to hurt me and my career–to know the truth. More importantly though, I know how insidious emotional abuse is and felt compelled to share my story so others might not feel so alone.

Regarding closure, I wish I had been able to have had a private conversation with the person I spoke about in my essay. Reaching out to him over text made me vulnerable, and ultimately ended up in a tabloid article where said texts were chopped up and spun to discredit me.

With the circus moving out of town, I intend to focus on the subject I originally wanted to shed light on: emotional abuse. I plan to continue this conversation and intend to work with institutions like RAINN and other support groups for survivors.

I hope that the hatred, the name calling, the death threats can go away and we can return to productive discourse. My love to everyone.

**Disciple of Fate**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:

You're the one getting a bit paranoid here, just look at the original source you posted:

AMC Networks have completed their investigation of Talking Dead host Chris Hardwick, ultimately leading to a decision which reinstates his role within the network.

“Following a comprehensive assessment by AMC, working with Ivy Kagan Bierman of the firm Loeb & Loeb, who has considerable experience in this area, Chris Hardwick will return to AMC as the host of Talking Dead and Talking with Chris Hardwick," AMC Networks said in a statement. "We take these matters very seriously and given the information available to us after a very careful review , including interviews with numerous individuals, we believe returning Chris to work is the appropriate step.”

The use of careful in that headline is just a quote on how AMC characterized its own review, nothing more, nothing less. You can read just as much into 'careful' review as in 'careful review'. Putting review in quotation marks doesn't add anything of value, while quoting careful does.

I disagree with you. Putting careful in shudder quotes does place a different emphasis on the title. Based on our previous interactions in this thread I don't think either of us will convince the other of our interpretation, but shudder quotes are a rhetorical devices used by writers. It just doesn't make sense to leave out "review" when that word immediately followed "careful" in the AMC statement, unless the writer/editor were trying to cast doubt on the vigilant nature of the investigation. Maybe it is bad writing/editing, but given the context of the article I am not convinced.

You are reading to much into it, look some more Slate headlines with quotation marks:

White House Bars CNN Reporter for “Shouting Questions” During Oval Office Press Event
Brock Turner Insists He Never Wanted Sex, Only “Outercourse”
The Hard Truth About House Democrats Being “Soft Favorites” This Fall
The War on Immigrants: Elizabeth Holtzman quit a Homeland Security advisory committee over Trump’s “punitive, cruel, vicious, heartless, ruthless” immigration policy.

Are these all rhetorical devices, or are they simply quoting like the article you mention also did? That they didn't put review in the quotation marks is just a stylistic choice so they could put AMC in between. It would have read much weirder if it had said "careful" AMC "review", which makes it sound much more insincere than the way they did it now. Its clear that careful in this context refers to the AMC Review, as in AMC called it careful.

**Sinful Hero**

Crimson Devil wrote:
Chloe Dykstra didn't participate with the AMC investigation. Her statement from twitter:

https://twitter.com/skydart/status/1022629877420183553

Exactly what “evidence” did she put forth besides anecdotes?

**Xenomancers**

Had to stop reading right here.

"Letting him sexually assault me"
Oh...you mean...let him have sex with you? Because sexually assault is when you are forced to do something sexual - not when you let someone do anything.

I wonder...why didn't she end the relationship when he told her he didn't want her to talk during dinner? She had a lot of opportunities to leave.

**Disciple of Fate**

Letting can be used in a lot of contexts, I don't think that should devalue anyone's story. Dykstra obviously feels that what she experienced was sexual assault, using letting in this context probably has something to do with her feeling guilty she let it happen. Its not an uncommon sentiment, even though in this case it seem that her claims were questionable when measured against societal standards for assault.

**Ustrello**

Sinful Hero wrote:
Crimson Devil wrote:
Chloe Dykstra didn't participate with the AMC investigation. Her statement from twitter:

https://twitter.com/skydart/status/1022629877420183553

Exactly what “evidence” did she put forth besides anecdotes?

A lot of what she said in that essay was consistent with boiler plate phrases you see individuals who are accused of rape, sexual assault, harassment etc. use that people so often decry and call out.

**feeder**

Xenomancers wrote:
Had to stop reading right here.

"Letting him sexually assault me"
Oh...you mean...let him have sex with you? Because sexually assault is when you are forced to do something sexual - not when you let someone do anything.

I wonder...why didn't she end the relationship when he told her he didn't want her to talk during dinner? She had a lot of opportunities to leave.

There is a plethora of studies and victim's stories available for you to read. You will discover that both those statements are not correct and why 'rape culture' is a real thing that exists.

I am not implying you are a rape apologist or anything of that sort. But your perception that she could not have been assaulted because she didn't physically resist and she was fine with the relationship because she didn't leave are two of the biggest foundations of 'rape culture'.

**Polonius**

There's also the difference between affirmative consent "yes, I want this," and passive consent, which is basically not saying no.

One of the downsides of increased awareness about abuse is that may people are using terms that have technical or legal definitions in the ways that are sloppy or even inaccurate. The upside of people being aware of all the ways that abuse occurs outweighs that, but you end up with a lot of people saying they were victims of emotional abuse or sexual assault when they are using a very broad definition, not the narrower, more commonly used definition.

Given that the accuser did not want to participate in the investigation, it seems that her goal of letting world know that he's a bad boyfriend has been accomplished, and we can probably move on.

**DarkTraveler777**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:

You're the one getting a bit paranoid here, just look at the original source you posted:

AMC Networks have completed their investigation of Talking Dead host Chris Hardwick, ultimately leading to a decision which reinstates his role within the network.

“Following a comprehensive assessment by AMC, working with Ivy Kagan Bierman of the firm Loeb & Loeb, who has considerable experience in this area, Chris Hardwick will return to AMC as the host of Talking Dead and Talking with Chris Hardwick," AMC Networks said in a statement. "We take these matters very seriously and given the information available to us after a very careful review , including interviews with numerous individuals, we believe returning Chris to work is the appropriate step.”

The use of careful in that headline is just a quote on how AMC characterized its own review, nothing more, nothing less. You can read just as much into 'careful' review as in 'careful review'. Putting review in quotation marks doesn't add anything of value, while quoting careful does.

I disagree with you. Putting careful in shudder quotes does place a different emphasis on the title. Based on our previous interactions in this thread I don't think either of us will convince the other of our interpretation, but shudder quotes are a rhetorical devices used by writers. It just doesn't make sense to leave out "review" when that word immediately followed "careful" in the AMC statement, unless the writer/editor were trying to cast doubt on the vigilant nature of the investigation. Maybe it is bad writing/editing, but given the context of the article I am not convinced.

You are reading to much into it, look some more Slate headlines with quotation marks:

White House Bars CNN Reporter for “Shouting Questions” During Oval Office Press Event
Brock Turner Insists He Never Wanted Sex, Only “Outercourse”
The Hard Truth About House Democrats Being “Soft Favorites” This Fall
The War on Immigrants: Elizabeth Holtzman quit a Homeland Security advisory committee over Trump’s “punitive, cruel, vicious, heartless, ruthless” immigration policy.

Are these all rhetorical devices, or are they simply quoting like the article you mention also did? That they didn't put review in the quotation marks is just a stylistic choice so they could put AMC in between. It would have read much weirder if it had said "careful" AMC "review", which makes it sound much more insincere than the way they did it now. Its clear that careful in this context refers to the AMC Review, as in AMC called it careful.

Many of those titles would go against your point if they removed the secondary, tertiary etc. words in the quote chain.

For example, White House Bars CNN Reporter for “Shouting Questions” During Oval Office Press Event replaced with White House Bars CNN Reporter for “Shouting" Questions During Oval Office Press Event.

Those titles read differently, yes?

I already provided an example of how the Hardwick title could be presented, without bias, while maintaining the accuracy of the AMC statement.

That would look something like this: Chris Hardwick to Return to Talking Dead After "Careful Review'" by AMC

Such a title maintains the verbiage of AMC's statement and doesn't add unnecessary shudder quotes.

Also, you are ignoring the title in conjunction with the context of the article itself. So, sorry, I don't buy that the the shudder quotes are anything other than intentionally casting doubt on AMC's review process. Context matters, right?

But go on and keep telling me I am paranoid, when you are ignoring the damn context of the article.

**PourSpelur**

I read this whole thread, then formed an opinion.
I "read" this whole thread, then formed an opinion.
I read this whole thread, "then" formed an opinion.
I read this whole thread, then "formed an opinion".

**Formosa**

PourSpelur wrote:
I read this whole thread, then formed an opinion.
I "read" this whole thread, then formed an opinion.
I read this whole thread, "then" formed an opinion.
I read this whole thread, then "formed an opinion".

Very nice

Very “nice”

“Very nice”

So yep, I agree

**Disciple of Fate**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:

But go on and keep telling me I am paranoid, when you are ignoring the damn context of the article.

What context, its about as matter of fact as you can get. What is wrong about the observation that oustings are more likely in a proffesional setting or with multiple accusers? Because in those settings you either have more witnesses, companies worried about an O'Reilly type lawsuit or independent of each other victim stories, its pretty accurate to state that in such a context a #MeToo outing is more likely than a he said she said. Its like me saying its more likely that you get sunburned if you have an outside job or spend more hours outside than other people. I think you're letting your bias bleed into the article.

**Xenomancers**

Polonius wrote:
There's also the difference between affirmative consent "yes, I want this," and passive consent, which is basically not saying no.

One of the downsides of increased awareness about abuse is that may people are using terms that have technical or legal definitions in the ways that are sloppy or even inaccurate. The upside of people being aware of all the ways that abuse occurs outweighs that, but you end up with a lot of people saying they were victims of emotional abuse or sexual assault when they are using a very broad definition, not the narrower, more commonly used definition.

Given that the accuser did not want to participate in the investigation, it seems that her goal of letting world know that he's a bad boyfriend has been accomplished, and we can probably move on.

She certainly has succeeded in making him look bad. She accuses him of sexual assault though. That is an unfair statement given what I read in the article.

**TheMeanDM**

I don't know the sexual appetites of Chris or Chloe.

What I will offer up is my opinion based on what she has said.

If you are squeamish about sexual intimacy and BDSM, read no further.

Spoiler:

**BobtheInquisitor**

So, Fifty Shades of Grey as it would really play out?

**cuda1179**

either that or a spurned ex lover that wants to extend her 15 minutes of fame.

Or it could be like that girl from Amherst college. A year after sexually assaulting her roommate's passed-out boyfriend she let a group of associates convince her (brainwash?) into thinking SHE was the victim. Get around people that alter your way of thinking and suddenly you see past events in a new light that makes your mind rewrite history to the point that even you believe it.

**TheMeanDM**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, Fifty Shades of Grey as it would really play out?

It may well be that + being around/influenced by people who do not understand the D/s dynamic and convinced her that it was abuse (similar to the above poster theory)

**feeder**

TheMeanDM wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, Fifty Shades of Grey as it would really play out?

It may well be that + being around/influenced by people who do not understand the D/s dynamic and convinced her that it was abuse (similar to the above poster theory)

Depending on his actions (assuming this theory is correct), it is 100% possible that they were in a consensual D/s relationship and he abused her.

**cuda1179**

feeder wrote:
TheMeanDM wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, Fifty Shades of Grey as it would really play out?

It may well be that + being around/influenced by people who do not understand the D/s dynamic and convinced her that it was abuse (similar to the above poster theory)

Depending on his actions (assuming this theory is correct), it is 100% possible that they were in a consensual D/s relationship and he abused her.

If it's consensual it's not abuse. Heck, if it was consensual he could literally have punched her in the face and it wouldn't be abuse.

**BobtheInquisitor**

It depends on how well each communicated exactly what they were consenting to. Perhaps they needed a contract?

**Ouze**

cuda1179 wrote:
If it's consensual it's not abuse. Heck, if it was consensual he could literally have punched her in the face and it wouldn't be abuse.

If someone in a bar dares you to punch them in the face, and you do so, and they die, you will almost certainly be charged with some variant of criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter despite the fact the person consented to be punched.

If someone consents to allowing you to perform plastic surgery on them in your living room, and then they die of complications, you will undoubtedly be charged with practicing medicine without a license at a minimum.

I am sure I can come up with more examples but the point is that someone consenting to something doesn't give you a blank check to do whatever you want.

So far as what happened between those two, no idea, and we're never going to know, either.

**cuda1179**

Ouze wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
If it's consensual it's not abuse. Heck, if it was consensual he could literally have punched her in the face and it wouldn't be abuse.

If someone in a bar dares you to punch them in the face, and you do so, and they die, you will almost certainly be charged with some variant of criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter despite the fact the person consented to be punched.

If someone consents to allowing you to perform plastic surgery on them in your living room, and then they die of complications, you will undoubtedly be charged with practicing medicine without a license at a minimum.

I am sure I can come up with more examples but the point is that someone consenting to something doesn't give you a blank check to do whatever you want.

So far as what happened between those two, no idea, and we're never going to know, either.

Practicing medicine without a license is in a wholly different league here and is more than a bit strawmany. As this woman is most definitely alive, your first point is also irrelevant.

Consenting to being punched is the reason assault charges aren't filed in high school or college boxing clubs or tough man competitions.

**Crimson Devil**

cuda1179 wrote:
feeder wrote:
TheMeanDM wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, Fifty Shades of Grey as it would really play out?

It may well be that + being around/influenced by people who do not understand the D/s dynamic and convinced her that it was abuse (similar to the above poster theory)

Depending on his actions (assuming this theory is correct), it is 100% possible that they were in a consensual D/s relationship and he abused her.

If it's consensual it's not abuse. Heck, if it was consensual he could literally have punched her in the face and it wouldn't be abuse.

Consent isn't a blank check. Just because you're in a relationship with someone doesn't give you the right to violate their boundaries. And consent can be withdrawn at anytime, for any reason.

**cuda1179**

Crimson Devil wrote:
[

Consent isn't a blank check. Just because you're in a relationship with someone doesn't give you the right to violate their boundaries. And consent can be withdrawn at anytime, for any reason.

I never said it was a blank check or that consent couldn't be revoked. I never even implied that.

**TheMeanDM**

Exactly.

There should always be communication about boundaries before entering the dynamic and, if you are a good Dom, during the dynamic. Don't just assume your sub will never change their feelings about something and that you will always have carte blanche to do anything and everything. Granted there are some people who get into total and complete slavery with no boundaries....

Anywho...that's a bit off the track...

Again, I just have a feeling that the dynamic was something she wasn't prepared for and eventually came to feel it was an abuse of some kind. She is 20 years younger than he is....and so may not have totally understood the committment it requires.

Piece that together with the text messages that surfaced in June that show Chris broke up with her due to her chesting on him.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cuda, you said he could punch her in the face and it not be abuse.....I kind.of read it the way others did as well at first.

Only if they have worked that out in establishing their dynamic would that not be abuse.

If, however, he did something completely outside her comfort zone without obtaining her consent then it could be considered abuse.

And in many (if not all?) States it doesn't matter to the cpurt if you even have a signed contract with your Dom or sub...the legal system does not look favorably upon BDSM activities (even between consenting adults).